The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so so now because you have so much more sample size you're going to potentially pick up side effects that weren't there in the first place and of course now you really have that gold standard for measuring efficacy and it's on the basis of the phase 1 phase 2 and mostly phase 3 data that a drug will get approved or not approved for broad use
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it's on the basis of the phase one phase two and mostly phase three data that a drug will get approved or not approved for broad use